update_ipsec_phase2_encryption

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral context, such as the effect of 'apply_immediately' or any prerequisite steps like calling apply_ipsec_changes. It merely restates the action without enriching annotation data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is immediately comprehensible. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it may be overly terse for a tool with 7 parameters and an apply step, leaving out potentially valuable context while still being structurally clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is too sparse for a complex mutation tool. It does not mention that changes may require an explicit apply operation (like apply_ipsec_changes) or that the 'apply_immediately' parameter can enforce immediate application. It also does not tell the agent to first search for the encryption ID using search_ipsec_phase2_encryptions. While an output schema exists, the description should still orient the agent on lifecycle and prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, each with clear descriptions (e.g., 'encryption_id', 'apply_immediately', 'dhgroup'). The description's only parameter hint is 'by ID', which matches the required encryption_id field. Since schema coverage is complete, the description does not need to add much, but it also does not add any extra context about parameter usage or interdependencies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (update), the resource type (IPsec Phase 2 encryption entry), and the selection mechanism (by ID). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_ipsec_phase2_encryption, delete_ipsec_phase2_encryption, and update_ipsec_phase2, all of which are present in the sibling tool list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'existing ... by ID' implies the entry must already exist and its ID is needed, which hints at using a search tool first. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus create/delete alternatives, nor does it mention the need to apply changes after updating (e.g., via apply_ipsec_changes).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.